formy project, i used the brain imaging technique...

For myproject,Iusedthebrainimagingtechniqueelectroencephalography(EEG)tostudyhowpeoplelearningasecondlanguageprocesssentenceswithpronounssuchas‘he’andreflexivessuchas‘himself’.ThisexperimentstartedaspartofaclassprojectinaseminaronNeuro-linguistics,taughtbymymentorsDr.RobFiorentinoandDr.AlisonGabriele.Lastyear,aftertheclassended,ItookovertheprojectandcompletedittofulfilltherequirementstograduatewithDepartmentalHonorsinLinguistics.

1

Exploringhow peoplelearnasecondlanguagecangiveinsightintohowthebrainworks,beyondjustlinguisticknowledge.Mystudyexaminesifsecondlanguagelearnersareabletoprocesssentencesatthesamelevel,usingthesamebrainmechanisms,asnativespeakers.AddressingthisquestioncanbringinsightstothedomainofNeuroscience,sheddinglightonwhetherornotourbrainsretainplasticity.Ifitistruethatsecondlanguagelearnerscanacquirethesamerulesforsentenceprocessingasnativespeakers,thenthatisevidenceforthebrain’sabilitytoformnewneurologicalpathways,evenafteritisfullydeveloped.

Toexplorethisquestion,Ilookedatonespecificaspectofsyntacticprocessing:Pronominaldependency- whichisuseofpronounsorreflexivestorefertosomeoneelsewithinasentence.Inordertoprocesspronominaldependencies,nativespeakersuseasetofgrammaticalrulescalledBindingTheory.

2

TheBindingtheoryisasetofsyntacticprincipleswhichgovernwhichelementsitemssuchasapronounorreflexivemayreferto.For myexperiment,IfocusedonPrincipleAandPrincipleBoftheBindingTheory. PrincipleAofBinding Theorystatesthatareflexivepronoun,suchas“himself”or“herself”,mustbe‘bound’withinitsminimalsentence.ThismeansthatinsentencessuchasexampleAabove:”JohnthinksthatHenrylikeshimself”,theword”himself”canonlygrammaticallyreferto“Henry”.InsentenceA“Henry”istheaccessibleantecedent,theonewhichBindingTheorystatesthat“himself”mustbereferredwith;and“John”istheinaccessibleantecedent. Conversely,PrincipleBofBindingtheorystatesthatanon-reflexivepronoun,suchas”him”or“her”,mustbeboundoutsideitsminimalsentence.So,inthecaseofexamplesentenceB,“John”istheaccessibleantecedent,and“Henry”isinaccessible.

Itiswidelyacceptedthatadultnativespeakersofalanguagehavethisknowledge,andadheretoBindingtheoryinsentenceswithpronominaldependenciessuchastheexamplesabove.StudieshaveshownthatwhentherulesofBindingtheoryarenotfollowed,forexample,iftheaccessibleantecedentdidnotmatchingenderornumberwiththeco-referencedpronoun,nativespeakersshowsensitivitytotheviolation.

3

Inmystudy, Iusedthebrainimagingtechniqueelectroencephalography(or EEG).EEGdatahasveryhightemporalresolution,sowecantrackbraindatainreal-time,whichallowsustoseedifferencesbetweendifferentparticipantgroupseveniftheymightperformsimilarlyonabehavioraltask.

EventRelatedPotentials,orERPs,areburstsofbrainactivitywhichhappenduringaspecificpointintimeandrepresentanaspectofprocessing.ERPsallowustoseehowandwhenasentencewasprocessed,whereabehavioralmethod,suchasacomprehensionquestion,wouldonlybeabletotelluswhetherornotthesentencewasunderstood.

ThespecificERPthatisseenwhenNativespeakersprocessaviolationtoBindingTheoryistheP600;aposteriorpositivitythatoccursbetween500-900msafteronsetoftheviolation.AnotherimportantERPthatisrelevanttomystudyistheLeftAnteriorNegativity,orLAN,whichoccursbetween300and500ms.

4

Oneoftheonlyrecent studiestoexamineonlineprocessBindingTheoryinSecondLanguagelearnersisLianget.al.Thisstudylooksathowsecondlanguagelearnersprocessaviolationwherethegenderofareflexivepronoundoesnotmatchwiththeantecedentthatisgrammatical.Thisiscalledagendermis-match.

Forexample,insentenceAthereflexive“himself”doesnotmatchingenderwiththeantecedent“MissZhao”.SincethesetwowordsshouldbereferencingthesamepersonaccordingtoBindingTheory,wewouldexpectaresponsetothisviolationattheonsetofthepronoun.Conversely,sentenceBiscorrectinaccordancewithBindingtheory,sowedoexpectaviolation.

TheparticipantsusedinthisstudywereagroupofChinesespeakerswhoweretestedontheprocessingoftheseviolationsinChinese,theirnativelanguageandaseparategroupofnativeChinesespeakerswhoweretestedontheprocessingoftheseviolationsinEnglish,theirsecondlanguage.

5

Lianget.al.foundthatconditionswithagendermis-matchviolation,showedaP600forboththegroupreadingtheirnativelanguageandthegroupreadingtheirsecondlanguage.Thisleadthemtoconcludethatsecondlanguagelearnersdoaccessthesamesyntacticrulestoprocesslanguageasnativespeakers.However,oneinterestingthingtheyfoundwasaLANresponseearlierinprocessingthatwaslargerandmoreconsistentfortheparticipantsreadingintheirnativelanguage.

6

Mystudyexpands ontheconceptstestedinLianget.al.,lookingnotonlyathowgender matching influencespronounreference,butalsolookingspecificallyathowtherulesofBindingTheorygovernwhichnounphraseapronounorreflexivecanreferto.Lianget.al.onlytestedreflexives,andeachsentencetypeonlyhadonlyonepotentialnounphraseprecedingthereflexive.Thisisaproblembecauseitleavesthepossibilitythatsecondlanguagelearnersjustattempttoreferthereflexivetotheonlyantecedentinthesentence(MissZhao)asopposedtolinkingthereflexivewiththenounphrasebecauseiswithinitsminimalsentence,asinaccordancewithBindingTheory.Toaddressthis,inmystudyItestedviolationsforsentenceswithbothreflexiveandnon-reflexivepronounsandallsentencesincludedtwopossibleantecedents.

MystudyaddressesatheoryinthesecondlanguageacquisitionliteraturecalledtheShallowStructurehypothesis.Relatedspecificallytopronominaldependencies,thishypothesisarguesthatsecondlanguagelearnerswilltrytolinkthepronounorreflexivetothenounphraseinsubjectposition,ratherthanthenounphrasethatiscorrectaccordingtoBindingtheory.Theyarguethatthenounphraseinsubjectpositionisprominentinthediscourseandlearnersaremorelikelytorelyondiscourseinformationthansyntacticrules.

7

TheissueIamlooking atinthisstudyiswhetherornotSecondLanguageprocesslanguagethesameasNativespeakers.Iwanttoknowwhetherornotanadultcanbecometrulyfluent,toanative-likelevel,inasecondlanguage.

8

Inmystudy, IwantedtoaccountforthepossibilitythatSecondlanguageLearnerscouldbeusingsomethingotherthantherulesofBindingTheorytoproducesimilarresultstoNativeparticipants.Inordertoaccomplishthis,Ichosestimulithatincludedtwonounphrases,aswellastestingconditionswithbothreflexiveandnon-reflexivepronouns.Myconditionsareoutlinedabove.

Condition(a)hasnoviolation;itisagrammaticalsentencewherethepronoun“her”matchesingendertoitsreferent“Daisy.”Condition(b)hasaviolationoftheBindingTheory,because“her”doesnotmatchingenderwith“Phil,”whichisin theplaceofthegrammaticallycorrectnounphrase.Thesamepatternisshownwithreflexives.Condition(c)showsanungrammaticalsentencewherethereis agendermis-matchbetween “herself”and“Phil,”. AndCondition(d)isgrammaticalaccordingtoBindingtheory.

Eachnameusedinthesentenceswaschosentobeunambiguouslyassociatedwithonegender,sothatthesecondlanguagelearnerswouldknowiftherewasagendermis-matcherror.Theorderofthegenderofnamesineachitemwasrandomized.Theverbsusedinthestimuliwereselectedtobecompatibleinsentenceswithpronounsaswellasreflexivesentences.

9

Asforthefillersentences,therewerefourconditionschosentotargetsubjectverbagreement.Therewerebothgrammaticalandungrammaticalversionsofsentenceswithpluralandsingularsubjects.Thesewerechosenbecausewewereabletocreateasimilarsyntacticviolationandsimilarlylengthofsentence,butwithouthavinganypronounreference.Thesubjectsinthefillerswerechosentobeanagent-subjectofanounphrase,ratherthananameasinthetargetsentences.

Allofthesentenceswerecreatedtosoundnaturalandcheckedsothatnoneofthesubjectswererepeated.Wealsomadesurethatnoneofthefillersusedanypronounsanywhereinthesentence.

10

Myparticipantswere9, righthandedadultsChinesespeakersbetween18-50yearswhoaresecondlanguagelearnersofEnglish.EachparticipanttookantestcalledtheLexTale,usedtoassesEnglishvocabulary.Thescoresonthesetestsvaried,whichmeansfluencylevelofparticipantswerevariedaswell,withameanscoreof69.25percent.

AsImentionedearlier,myexperimentwasdoneonanEEGusingERPanalysis.Thismethodwaschosenbecauseitcanmeasuretimingverypreciselyandallowsustoseeexactlyhowandwhenasentenceswasprocessed.

Duringthemainexperiment,participantswereconnectedtotheEEGcapandsatinfrontofthecomputer.TheirbrainactivitywasrecordedbytheEEGsystemastheyreadsentences.

11

Themaintaskwasadministered onaprogramcalledParadigm.Theintroductorysectionincludedawelcomeslide,instructions forthetask,and6practiceitems.Duringthemaintaskeachparticipantssaw160targetitemsand80fillers,foratotalof240itemsrandomlyvariedinaLatin-squaredesign.Sentenceswerepresentedonewordatatimeinthecenterofthescreen,usingRapidSerialVisualPresentation.Aftereachsentencestheparticipantwasaskedtotoanswerajudgmentquestionbypressingabuttononacontroller.Participantswereoffered4breaksduringthemainexperiment,whichtookabout1hourtocomplete.

TimesforstimulipresentationlengthandthelengthoftheexperimentwerechosenbasedonpreviousL2research.

12

Aftereach iteminthemainERPtask,participantswereaskedwhetherornotthesentencewasacceptable,andaskedtopress”yes”or“no”onaresponsepadbeforemovingontothenextitem.Thismeasurewastakeninordertobesureparticipantswerestayingfocusedandunderstandingthesentences.

Asfortheothertasksadministered,beforetheexperiment,eachparticipantwasgivenaconsentformtolookoverandsignbeforebeginning.Theythentookashortlanguagebackgroundquestionnairewhichincludedahandednessquestionnairetoreferenceandbesuretheywerecompatiblewiththestudy.Lastly,afiveminutelexicaldecisiontaskcalledLexTalewasadministered.Thiswasusedtoassesparticipants’knowledgeofEnglishvocabularyandwasusedasaproficiencymeasure.

Afterthemainexperiment,participantsfilledouta20-questionreferencetaskaskingthemtoexplicitlychoosewhichnounphrasetheythoughtthepronounorreflexivewasreferringtointhestimulisentences.Thiswasgivenafterthemainexperiment,soasnottoprimetheexpectedresponseorinformtheparticipantofexactlywhichitemswewerelookingat.

13

Ifthesecondlanguagelearnersareabletoaccesstherulesofbindingtheory,andprocesssentencesinthesamewayasnativespeakers,thenwewouldexpectalargerP600forconditionswhichhadaviolationinBindingTheory,comparedtotheconditionsthatdidnothaveaviolation.ThismeansthatconditionB,theungrammaticalpronoun,willhavealargerpositivitythanconditionA,thegrammaticalpronouncondition.Thesameistrueforreflexives:conditionC,ungrammatical,willhavealargerpositivitythanconditionD,grammatical.Thisissimilartowhatwewouldexpecttoseefromnativespeakers.DuetoconcernsaboutCOVID-19,IwasnotabletotestmyownstimulionagroupofnativeEnglishspeakers,asacomparisongroup.BecauseofthisIwilluseexpectedresultsderivedfromstudiesusingsimilarstimulitounderstandhownativespeakersprocesstheseerrors.OnestudythatlookedatsentenceswithBindingTheoryviolationswasHarriset.al.(2000)TheirstudysupportedtheideathatnativespeakerswouldyieldaprominentP600forsentenceswithBindingTheoryerrors,regardlessofdiscourseprominence.

IfClahsenandFelseret.al.’sshallowstructurehypothesisiscorrect,andsecondlanguagelearnersonlyattempttorefertothenouninsubjectposition,thenwewouldexpectbenative-likeforthepronounconditions,wheretheaccessible

14

antecedentisinsubjectposition,yieldingagreaterP600forconditionB,wherethegendermis-matchedwiththesubjectantecedent,thanforconditionA.Thisissimilartohowweexpectnativestopattern.WealsoexpectagreaterP600fromconditionDthanC,becauseinDthegenderofthereflexivemis-matcheswiththesubjectantecedent,regardlessofwhetherornotitwascorrectaccordingtoBindingtheory.Thisisdifferentfromwhatwewouldexpectfromnativespeakers.

Additionally,somestudiessuchasLianget.al.thatwasoutlinedearlier,foundaLeftAnteriorNegativity,orLANresponseforthesetypesofviolations.

14

Theraw EEGdatacollectedfromeachparticipantwasprocessedtominimizeartifacts,thenusedtogenerateaveragesforthetwotimewindowsfortheERPsofinterest.Welookedatthethewindow300-500msafteronsetoftheviolation,thisistheusualtimewindowfortheLANresponse,whichisanegativitylocalizedtowardstheanteriorregionofthebrain.Theothertimewindowwelookedatwas500-900msafteronset,whichisthetimewewouldexpectaP600,apositiveresponsefoundonposteriorelectrodes.

Usingthesegrandaverages,Icreatedfigurescomparingtheungrammaticalconditiontothegrammaticalconditionforbothsentenceswithreflexivesandnon-reflexivepronouns.

15

Shown abovearethefigurescomparingthegrandaverageresponsesforallparticipantsfortheungrammaticalpronouncondition,wheretherewasaviolationtoBindingtheory,tothegrammaticalpronouncondition.Theungrammaticalconditionisshowninred.

Around300-500msonthegraphtheungrammaticalconditionwasmorenegativethanthegrammaticalcondition,especiallyinelectrodeFZaround500ms.ItispossiblethatthisisanemergingLANeffect,sinceitisfoundinthetimewindowandespeciallynoticeableinanteriorelectrodes.ThisissimilartowhatwasfoundbyLianget.al.

Around500-900ms,whichisthetimewindowfortheP600effect,theungrammaticalandgrammaticalconditionswerenotverydifferentfromoneanother;neitherconditionshowedagreaterP600effect.

16

These graphsshowthegrandaveragefromallparticipantsoftheresponsescomparingthereflexiveconditions.Theungrammaticalconditionisshowninred.

There wasalargernegativityfortheungrammaticalreflexivesthanforthegrammaticalreflexivesbetween300and500ms.ThiscouldbeanemergingLANeffect,similartowhatwesawinthepronounconditions.

Around500-900mstherewasagreateroverallpositivity,especiallyfortheposteriorelectrodesrepresentedbyPZ.ThiscouldbeanemergingP600effect,whichisusuallyfoundatthistimeinprocessingaroundtheposteriorelectrodes.

17

Thepreviousdatapatterns were similartowhatwewouldexpecttoseefromnativespeakersbasedonpreviousstudiessuchasHarriset.al.andLianget.al.Thesefindingsshowtrendssuggestingthatparticipantsaresensitivetobinding theoryviolations,meaningthattheymaybeabletoaccessthesamebrainmechanismsasnativespeakers.Theseresultslendevidencetothepossibilitythatourbrainsareabletoretainplasticityintoadulthood.

Thesearejustthepreliminaryfindingsinwhatcouldbeamuchlargerexperiment.Fluencylevelofmyparticipantsvariedalot,whichcouldexplainwhytherewasnotadifferenceintheP600effectfoundforthepronounconditions.Inthefuture,itwouldbebeneficialtotestonmorehighproficiency learners,whowouldbemoreattunetothesyntacticerrorsinthestimuli.ItwouldalsohelptohavealargerparticipantgroupoverallandtestacontrolgroupofEnglishspeakersusingmyownstimuli.

18

Iwouldliketothank mymentorsDr.RobFiorentinoandDr.AlisonGabrieleforhelpingmedevelopandcarryoutthisproject,especiallyforalltheydidduringtheCOVID-19quarantinetohelpmefinishthisprojectevenwithoutaccessthelabtoprocessdata.IwouldalsoliketothankXiaoYangforallherhelpteachingmehowtorunparticipants,andeveryoneelseintheNeurolinguisticslabwhohelpedmewithEEGsessionsandrecruitingparticipants.IwouldalsoliketothankthestudentsinmySpring2019Linguisticscourse,“CognitiveNeuroscienceofSecondLanguageAcquisition”,whoworkedonthestimuliandpilotstagesofdatacollectionwhenthiswasaclassproject.

19

Herearemyreferences.Thankyou!

20